Maryland State House
The Second Dome
1784-1787
According to the Intendent of Revenue, Daniel St. Thomas Jenifer, the first
dome of the State House was a contradiction of architectural design. A
survey of the timbers in 1784 revealed that they were so decayed by water
damage that a new dome would be required.
"It was originally constructed contrary to all rules of architecture;
it ought to have been built double instead of single, and a staircase between
the two domes, leading up to the lanthorn. The water should have been carried
off by eaves, instead of being drawn to the center of the building, to
two small conductors, which are liable to be choked by ice, and overflowed
by rains. That it was next to impossible, under present construction, that
it could have been made tight" 1.
The General Assembly authorized Jenifer to employ the workmen necessary
to make repairs to the house and garden of the governor's house and the
dome and roof of the State House. Joseph Clark, a local merchant and architect
of the City, submitted his designs to Jenifer.
On February 24, 1785 Jenifer placed a notice in the Maryland Gazette
for carpenters work to be made to the dome and roof under the execution
of Joseph Clark 2. In April and May of that
year, Clark advertized for thirty journeyman carpenters. They were guarenteed
one year of labor. A letter from Joshua Botts, one of the hired carpenters,
describes Clark's plans for the governor's and State Houses:
"The work We are a Doing is to put a Roof on the Governor's House and
we are going to take the Roof of the State house and it is a going to Raise
it one story higher and the Doom is to be Sixty foot higher then the old
one" 3.
Clark raised the pitch of the dome to facilitate the runoff of excess water,
the chief reason the timbers rotted in the original dome.
It has been speculated that the actual design of the dome is based upon
the Schlossturm, a tower to the north side of the palace of Karl-Wilhelm
Markgraf in Karlsruhe, Germany. Winifred and Douglas Gordon argue that
in view of the many similarities of details and general form it is hard
to believe that there is not a connection between the two buildings.
"The Annapolis dome is in its proportions like the original Karlsruhe
tower. Possibly its more classical feeling is a result of the universal
trend of architectural styles rather than the influence of the altered
Schlossturm. Yet the arched windows below the architrave in Annapolis,
one with the lower part closed, are like the windows below the Architrave
in Karlsruhe in all of which the lower parts are closed. The horizontal
oval windows below the main curving section of the dome in Annapolis resemble
the vertical ovals in the equivalent part of the Karlsruhe tower. The small
square windows above the balustrades and the architraves themselves in
both buildings are similarly placed"4.
The term "State House" is derived from the German "stadthaus," meaning
city hall. Interestingly enough, the State House at Annapolis was referred
to as the "Stadt House" by the Maryland General Assembly 5.
An article in the February 1789 edition of the Columbian Magazine also
comments on the building of the State House. At this time the exterior
of the dome is pictured, lending strength to the estimated completion of
the second dome in 1788. The author of the article appears to admire the
exterior design of the dome and the "skill of the ingenious architect,"
but is disturbed by the actual size of the dome.
"This handsome edifice [the State House], which has been many years
in erecting, and is not yet finished, is built chiefly of brick, and decorated
in a style of great taste: but there is a disproportion between the dome
and the body of the building which must hurt the eye of every spectator.
This defect might be considerably lessened by adding a parapet wall, of
a few feet in height, which would conceal the roof from the eye and at
the same time extend the height of the walls, to the apparent diminution
of that of the dome" 6.
With the classical interpretation of sheltering rotundas as symbols of
unity, permanence, and strength, it is rather appropriate that Clark made
the second dome the most noticeable feature of the State House. On September
14, 1786 the Annapolis Convention had issued its call for the gathering
in Philadelphia to write the American Constitution. In the midst of heated
political debate concerning the propriety of a strong national central
government, Joseph Clark placed in the very center of the City a secure
structure of stalwart constitution that has distinguished the Annapolis
skyline for over two hundred years.
In addition to raising the slope of the roof and increasing the size
of the dome, Joseph Clark chose to cover the exterior of the cupola with
Cypress shingles. As a merchant of the City, Clark purchased the majority
of materials from an impressive list of Annapolis's prominent businessmen:
Joseph Dashiell, John Shaw, Charles Wallace, Thomas Harwood, Simon Retallick,
Allen Qwynn, and John Callahan 7. Unfortunately,
the project soon encountered many obstacles. It was difficult to acquire
the necessary plank, scaffolding, and large timber required to build a
dome of great size. Colonel Dashiell, who had the contract for furnishing
the timbers, found it impossible to get the lumber out of the swamp in
the unseasonable weather 8. Accidents became
frequent. A fire occurred in the cellar of the State House.
"About six o'clock, on Tuesday morning last, the stadt- House was discovered
to be on fire, occasioned by the fire left in the chimney, which by some
means communicated with the floor, through that into the cellar to a quantity
of shavings, but by timely and vigorous exertions it was happily extinguished
without much damage" 9
Furthermore, one of the workmen was seriously injured. While climbing the
scaffolding with a load of shingles, Thomas Canfield slipped eighty feet
to the ground below 10.
Although the physical troubles of erecting the building must have been
tasking for Clark, financial problems were a true test to the completion
of the dome. The General Assembly became impatient with the lack of progress
on the interior of the dome and the amount of money already spent on the
project. Clark was not paid in full for services rendered, although he
did receive approximately 2000 pounds from the Treasury of the fees ordered
by the Auditor. Clark petitioned the General Assembly for several years
after 1788 for the amount listed in his account, but was not successful
11. In 1787, Governor Smallwood ordered the
treasurer to pay Clark 1500 pounds so that work on the public buildings
could be completed. No money was available from the treasury and the Council
requested that money earmarked for public funds be used. They argued that
the state house would be significantly injured if it remained in its present
condition throughout winter. The General Assembly responded. Funds were
given only to fix the rooms in the second story of the State-House formally
occupied by the governor, council, and auditor general; and it was recommended
that they make use of the said rooms as soon as they were completed 12.
With their own vital interests secure, the politicians were satisfied with
this agreement and Joseph Clark's position as the formal undertaker of
the building ended 13.
Introduction
The First Dome, 1769-1774
The Second Dome, 1787-1792
The Second Dome's Completion, 1792-1797
The Franklin Rod
Conclusion
|
This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.
Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!
|
©
Copyright June 07, 2002Maryland State Archives